1.
For the seventh time in less than 70 years, a
report has been commissioned by the Government which has
dealt with concerns about the press. It was sparked by
public revulsion about a single action – the hacking of
the mobile phone of a murdered teenager. From that
beginning, the scope of the Inquiry was expanded to cover
the culture, practices and ethics of the press in its
relations with the public, with the police, with politicians
and, as to the police and politicians, the conduct of each.
It carries with it authority provided personally by the
Prime Minister. It requires me to consider the extent to
which there was a failure to act on previous warnings as to
the conduct of the press, the way in which the press has
been regulated (if it has) and, in any event, how regulation
should work in the future.

2. The
inclusion of the relationship between the press and the
police came about because of public concern that the police
had become too close to the press in general, and News
International in particular, with the result that the
investigation of phone hacking had not been conducted with
the rigour that it deserved and calls for re-consideration
of the allegations were ignored. Inclusion of the press and
politicians followed not only because of the political
consensus from the Government and Opposition parties that
politicians had been too close to the press but also because
of concerns about the bid by News Corporation for the
remaining shares in BSkyB plc. The operation of the wider
regulatory framework in relation to data protection,
together with consideration of issues of plurality of
ownership and its effect on competition came to be included
as wider consideration was given to the all embracing nature
of the Terms of Reference for Part 1.

3.
It took three months to start receiving the
evidence (although the process continued for a year). In
nearly nine months of oral hearings, 337 witnesses gave
evidence in person and the statements of nearly 300 others
(individuals or groups) were read into the evidence without
them being called. Almost all of the evidence is and has
been available to watch and daily transcripts have also been
published online. Statements and exhibits can be examined on
the Inquiry website: it has become the most public and the
most concentrated look at the press that this country has
seen.

4. The task set by the Prime
Minister is that I should make recommendations, based firmly
on the evidence that I have heard and read, about the way in
which things should be done differently in the future. This
has meant reaching broad conclusions as to the narrative of
events sufficient to explain and justify my recommendations,
all the while being mindful of an ever expanding police
investigation which has already led to over 90 arrests.
Every single one of those arrested is presumed and remains
innocent unless and until the contrary is proved in
court. It has thus been a core principle of the Inquiry that
the investigation and any prosecution should not be
prejudiced by its work: that has inevitably led to serious
restrictions around the evidence that could be called or
investigated in areas that are obviously key to the Terms of
Reference.

5. By appointing a judge to
conduct an Inquiry of this nature, the intention was that it
would proceed along judicial lines. In other words, the
Inquiry would be a process of obtaining evidence and
reaching conclusions based on objective appraisal of
evidence, independence and political neutrality.
Furthermore, for over 40 years as a barrister and a judge, I
have watched the press in action, day after day, in the
courts in which I have practised. I have seen how the press
have assisted the investigation of crime and seen the way
that the public have been informed about the operation of
the justice system. I know how vital the press is – all of
it – as the guardian of the interests of the public, as a
critical witness to events, as the standard bearer for those
who have no one else to speak up for them. Nothing in the
evidence that I have heard or read has changed that. The
press, operating properly and in the public interest is one
of the true safeguards of our democracy. As Thomas Jefferson
put it:

“Where the press is free and every man able
to read, all is safe.”

6. As a
result of this principle which operates as one of the
cornerstones of our democracy, the press is given
significant and special rights in this country which I
recognise and have freely supported both as barrister and
judge. With these rights, however, come responsibilities to
the public interest: to respect the truth, to obey the law
and to uphold the rights and liberties of individuals. In
short, to honour the very principles proclaimed and
articulated by the industry itself (and to a large degree
reflected in the Editors’ Code of Practice).

7.
The evidence placed before the Inquiry has
demonstrated, beyond any doubt, that there have been far too
many occasions over the last decade and more (itself said to
have been better than previous decades) when these
responsibilities, on which the public so heavily rely, have
simply been ignored. There have been too many times when,
chasing the story, parts of the press have acted as if its
own code, which it wrote, simply did not exist. This has
caused real hardship and, on occasion, wreaked havoc with
the lives of innocent people whose rights and liberties have
been disdained. This is not just the famous but ordinary
members of the public, caught up in events (many of them,
truly tragic) far larger than they could cope with but made
much, much worse by press behaviour that, at times, can only
be described as outrageous.

8. That is
not to conclude that the British press is somehow so devoid
of merit that press freedom, hard won over 300 years ago,
should be jeopardised or that the press should be delivered
into the arms of the state. Although the Inquiry has been
reported as having that aim, or likely to have that result,
even to suggest it is grossly to misrepresent what has been
happening over the last 16 months. I remain (as I started)
firmly of the belief that the British press – all of it
– serves the country very well for the vast majority of
the time. There are truly countless examples of great
journalism, great investigations and great campaigns. The
exposure of thalidomide, the campaign to bring the killers
of Stephen Lawrence to justice, the exposure of abuse in
the operation of MPs expenses are but the best known in a
long list. The press describes world and local events,
illuminates political issues and politics generally, holds
power to account, challenges authority, investigates and
provides a forum for debate.

9. It is not
necessary or appropriate for the press always to be pursuing
serious stories for it to be working in the public interest.
Some of its most important functions are to inform, educate
and entertain and, when doing so, to be irreverent, unruly
and opinionated. It adds a diversity of perspective. It
explains complex concepts that matter in today’s world in
language that can be understood by everyone. In no
particular order, it covers sports, entertainment, fashion,
culture, personal finance, property, TV and radio listings
and many other topics. It provides help lines and advice; it
supports its readers in a wide variety of ways. It provides
diversion in the form of crosswords, games, and cartoons. In
short, it is a very important part of our national
culture.

10. But that does not mean that
it is beyond challenge. Neither does it mean that the price
of press freedom should be paid by those who suffer,
unfairly and egregiously, at the hands of the press and have
no sufficient mechanism for obtaining redress. There is no
organised profession, trade or industry in which the serious
failings of the few are overlooked because of the good done
by the many. Indeed, the press would be the very first to
expose such practices, to challenge and campaign in support
of those whose legitimate rights and interests are being
ignored and who are left with no real recourse. That is,
indeed, the function of the press: to hold those with power
to account. It is, in fact, what the Guardian did in
relation to the News of the World, and what first ITV and
then Panorama did in relation to the BBC.

11.
The purpose of this Inquiry has been two fold.
First, it has been to expose precisely what has been
happening by publicly testing the evidence of those who are
able to speak about different aspects of the Terms of
Reference: the public has been able to see and read what has
been said and can make up its own mind. Second, it is to
make recommendations for change. As to that, there is no
argument but that changes do need to be made. For example,
it is almost universally accepted that the body presently
charged with the responsibility of dealing with complaints
against the press is neither a regulator nor fit for purpose
to fulfil that responsibility.

12.
Although the contrary is often asserted, not a
single witness has proposed that the Government or that
Parliament should be able to step in to prevent the
publication of anything whatsoever. Not a single witness has
proposed that the Government or Parliament should themselves
be involved in the regulation of the press. I have not
contemplated and do not make any such proposal.

13. The Report has been written to build
up the evidence in relation to the public, the police, data
protection and the politicians before going on to consider
the law and regulation. In the light of my findings, it is
possible to deal with the press and the public, the police
and politicians entirely separately. Accordingly, this
summary deals first with background, and then turns to the
press and the public followed by the Press Complaints
Commission and regulation of the press (including references
to the law). It then deals with the police (both as regards
Operation Caryatid and the relationship between the press
and the police) before going on to the press and data
protection. The main section ends with press and politicians
and the issue of plurality.

New Zealand likes to think we played our part – via the 1981 Springbok tour – in bringing the apartheid regime in South Africa to an end… Jacob Zuma treated the death of Fidel Castro at the weekend as an occasion to pay a heartfelt tribute to the thousands of Cuban soldiers who travelled across the world to inflict the first significant military defeat on the forces of white supremacy. More>>

Once again at the business end of a US election, the result will hinge on the same old bits of geography as always: the Five Crucial Counties in Ohio, the Two Crucial Counties in Pennsylvania and the I-4 Interstate Corridor in Florida that runs from Tampa Bay through Orlando to Daytona Beach. More>>

The Joint Investigation Team (JIT) is convinced of having obtained irrefutable evidence to establish that on 17 July 2014, flight MH-17 was shot down by a BUK missile from the 9M38-series. According to the JIT there is also evidence identifying the launch location that involves an agricultural field near Pervomaiskyi which, at the time, was controlled by pro-Russian fighters. More>>

ALSO:

Former Portuguese Prime Minister António Guterres has emerged as the clear favourite to become the next United Nations Secretary-General following the sixth secret ballot held today by the UN Security Council, which is expected to take a formal decision tomorrow and forward Mr. Guterres’ name to the 193-Member General Assembly for final confirmation. More>>

The coverage of international news seems almost entirely dependent on a random selection of whatever some overseas news agency happens to be carrying overnight... Here are a few interesting international stories that have largely flown beneath the radar this past week. More>>

Refugees and asylum seekers on Nauru, most of whom have been held there for three years, routinely face neglect by health workers and other service providers who have been hired by the Australian government, as well as frequent unpunished assaults by local Nauruans. More>>